Forum:Content Team help
20:12, July 1, 2011 (UTC) ::Actually, i guess I shouldn't say The Vault since they list their main games up top, but you get the idea. 20:14, July 1, 2011 (UTC) :::We're not forcibly going to merge anything of course. Both this communityand the P4F community have to agree with the move. About the media section: Yeah, I was planning on moving it down a bit instead of removing it. A video on the mainpage only makes it nicer. Mark (talk) 20:48, July 1, 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't be against a merger with P4F Wiki, or just an informal co-operation like with BFH Wiki. I suppose it's largely down to whoever edits there as to whether they want to work with us or not. As for the mainpage, sounds like you have some constructive ideas, which is always good. I'll look forward to seeing your prototype. - 20:41, July 1, 2011 (UTC) :ps. Not so much about this, but a general message. I'm off now for about 2 months, so I'll be working to get all of the images licensed or deleted, all unused images used or deleted and all poor quality images tagged for replacement or deleted. - 20:44, July 1, 2011 (UTC) I am very much in agreement with adding a contents section to the main page. It's makes the main page more user-friendly to viewers, who can then quickly jump to the respective category of articles they are looking for. As for the mergers, I do believe that Battlefield information should be centralized. The Battlefield Heroes Wiki, the Battlefield Play4Free Wiki, and our own wiki, are all online databases dedicated to Battlefield - we only differ in that the former are devoted to a specific Battlefield game. Merging with the other two wikis would benefit our wiki, but it's more of the decision of the communities of the Battlefield Heroes Wiki and the Battlefield Play4Free Wiki than our own. Content wise, we're lacking a little bit in terms of information on the Refractor 2 engine games. Thanks for helping us out, Mark. - Bovell Talk | 22:46, July 1, 2011 (UTC) I think a contents section on the mainpage would work nicely, but I'm quite marginal about how it would affect the page's layout. A draft idea would be nice. The merger with the P4F wiki would be rather annoying, considering that one would assume that admins there would want to become admins here, and so on. I think that'd make our userbase even more sysop-cluttered. Also, much of the content that is on that wiki would need to be altered to meet our policies, namely "Impersonal You" (BF:MOS). I think cross-linking, like with the Battlefield Heroes wiki, would be the best move we could make right now. - 15:14, July 3, 2011 (UTC) :There's really no such thing as "too many admins." We're not limited in the amount of users who can possess sysop-related tools, and if we see they can help with administration, then by all means, they should. - Bovell Talk | 15:26, July 3, 2011 (UTC) Could I also suggest a news thing on the main page, similar to on the Call of Duty wiki? I think it would really help newcomers read news easier and it gives the wiki a more professional feel. N7 Talk 16:48, July 3, 2011 (UTC) :N7, to the right side of the main page. A thing called "Latest News" exists there. - 16:51, July 3, 2011 (UTC) :Derp, I didn't notice that :/ --N7 Talk 17:33, July 3, 2011 (UTC) I've just completed the draft of the new mainpage. As you can see, the changes aren't that major (all sections are kept, but the less important ones are pushed down), and I moved the slider to the top of the page. We can also replace the content images with content links like the Red Faction Wiki if you think that looks better. Feel free to make any changes you think are necessary, or leave a comment here and I'll make the changes. As soon as we've reached consensus on the new mainpage I'll put it online. In the meantime, I'll contact the P4F wiki to see what they think of merging (or a "partnership"). Mark (talk) 17:28, July 3, 2011 (UTC) :Looks awesome. --N7 Talk 17:33, July 3, 2011 (UTC) ::I like what I'm seeing so far. But would it be possible to combine the video and image to be Featured Media? This month was an exception since a lot of content was released and we decided to have an image and a video. Normally we would only have either one video or one image. Then again, we might be changing that as of this month. 17:43, July 3, 2011 (UTC) :::Sure, we can always just hide the video/image section. Mark (talk) 18:03, July 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::I would also contact the Battlefield Heroes Wiki if you can for similar reasons. - Bovell Talk | 22:00, July 3, 2011 (UTC) I hope you don't mind Mark, I've taken your design and made a few changes of my own at Usergroup:New mainpage/BP. It's essentially the same though. - 21:22, July 3, 2011 (UTC) Hmm, I think I likes it. I think a combination of the two would be the best, having the large content icons of Mark's version with the Featured Media underneath, as in BP's version. But IMO the "Welcome to the Battlefield wiki" section should be at the top of the page. It's just, well, more suitable there, welcoming people to the wiki instead of launching themselves into the MP slider and the contents. But both look nice. - 21:57, July 3, 2011 (UTC) :Very nice Bond! I'm not sure which I like the best (other than Mark's not having featured media combined but that, I believe, is a simple fix). The only qualm I have is the image for the campaign level category link. I don't feel an image of a Black Hawk on Port Valdez in multiplayer shows off the campaign missions well! :P Perhaps we can do something similar with this image? 23:45, July 3, 2011 (UTC) ::Mmm yeah, good point. I'll change it ASAP. And Bond, that mainpage looks great :). Mark (talk) 00:30, July 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I agree Eden, there's actually a two or three images (maps, singleplayer, weapons) I think could be better, but I just used the one's Mark provided. - 13:52, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :Hmmm, yes, I like Bond's mainpage, though I would rather still keep the "Welcome to the Battlefield Wiki" header to stay. It would balance the two columns out, anyways, since there needs to be space for an ad on the right. Also, I'd like to keep the links to the other languages up there... SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 02:57, July 4, 2011 (UTC) I really like Bond's layout. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 03:00, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :Good point, SSD. An ad will probably push the right column down a single "box" about the size of the Welcome page, meaning that the columns won't be balanced out anymore. And SEO-wise it's probably not bad to have the links to the other languages on top, together with the name of the wiki. Mark (talk) 12:07, July 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, I liked the header box with the welcome bit and the languages, but I thought it just looked pointless if it wasn't at the top - 13:58, July 4, 2011 (UTC) Another proposal - I think the wiki navigation could also do with some updates. Right now the Recent Changes have a seperate tab, which is completely useless because of MyTools at the bottom of each page. So I'd say we replace that with a more useful section like "Battlefield 2", as that's what a lot of people are looking for. Mark (talk) 20:38, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :Fair enough. But could I suggest that Battlefield 3 might be a better choice... - 20:49, July 4, 2011 (UTC) ::In fact, I'll do it now - 20:50, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Problem is that there's not nearly enough information on Battlefield 3 to create a dropdown with 2+ links (or do we already have some BF3 categories?). Mark (talk) 20:54, July 4, 2011 (UTC) Status Update - I've just checked with the local admin of the P4F wiki and he was positive about merging. He created this page to get consensus, and if the community is positive or if we won't get any replies, all we need is consensus here. Mark (talk) 21:29, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :I know I may have said this before, so not to be a hassle, but do you plan on contacting the Battlefield Heroes Wiki as well? 23:23, July 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Lets first complete the merge with the P4F Wiki before we propose it to the Battlefield Heroes Wiki. Mark (talk) 15:28, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::I put out a blog to try and generate some extra input on the merger proposal from guys here. It's simply because, even with a merger, we have to abide by BF:WHAT, so we should consult all the other guys on the wiki, not just the few editing here. I also contacted Eli Lord to give him a few helping hints on how to do the same on the P4F wiki. - 21:39, July 5, 2011 (UTC) As we're still waiting for community approval on the merge, lets get the mainpage done. I made the requested changes to the proposed mainpage so, unless anybody still wants something changed I'll put it online. Mark (talk) 22:01, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :Well, I think it's still too imperfect. The content circles are too big, I'm still not happy with the choice of images in the content circles and there's only featured video - when we've just, less than a week ago, decided to have a featured video and image. And I still think the 'Welcome to' box is useless unless it's right at the top - it either needs moving back or scrapping - 22:16, July 6, 2011 (UTC) ::The circles are a little big... I don't mind the images, but which ones don't you like Bond? Mark can't fix it unless you're specific, lol. Having suggestions for replacement would be good too. ::And I do feel we should have the header up top. Maybe it can be a little smaller along with the forums section and the "elsewhere online" section so everything fits better. ::Another thing I just noticed about the main page is that everything is in boxes. Is that really necessary? It kinda looks weird now that I pay attention to it... 22:55, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :::About the featured video: I removed that section because I was told that it was a one-time event to have both a video and an image. I've made the images smaller, down to 90px (60px makes them too small to see what's actually on the images). Mark (talk) 23:13, July 6, 2011 (UTC) ::::I'm a fan of your redesign, with my only suggestion being to move the "Welcome to Battlefield Wiki" header up to the top. Looks great otherwise. ::::And @Bondpedia: We can always change the images that the content buttons use later. Let's finalize the layout first. - Bovell Talk | 23:17, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :::The way I interpreted the discussion, we agreed one of each every month from now on. As for the reduced size content circles, that looks much better. As for PE78, I'm still not keen on the singleplayer levels picture or the vehicles picture, and I really don't think the maps picture is good enough. I don't know about replacements, but as Bovell says, we can deal with that later. I like the boxes, the columns and sections just look lost without them. I didn't particularly mind getting rid of the welcome section, I appreciate the slider looks better up top. But it just looks terrible keeping it and not having it at the top. I like the idea of stripping it down, maybe something like this - 23:20, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :::::Feel free to make any changes you'd like to see, including the images. If you have better replacements I'd say go ahead. The reason I want to put this mainpage online on time is because IMO the changes aren't that major, I won't make any changes without the community agreement of course. I'll continue the work on the mainpage tomorrow. Mark (talk) 23:25, July 6, 2011 (UTC) Actually, you've got me thinking about it, and don't mind what I say, it's more thinking aloud than a serious consideration, so I don't want this to delay the upgrade. Perhaps the 'elsewhere online' section can be cut down, or deleted. Everything in it can be found under the 'friends/affiliates' section of the navigation bar, either directly or on the respective page. Furthermore, maybe we don't need the 'latest posts' extension of the 'forums' section. How often do people use that? Only problem with these suggestions is that we'd then have to find much more content to replace it... - 23:34, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :I would suggest removing the embedded forums if anything. - Bovell Talk | 23:41, July 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, I've made Usergroup:New mainpage/BP2, just to experiment with this idea and what new content could go into it. But I have to say, it's a big void to fill - 23:51, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :::A "Did you know?" section is generally a good thing to have on a main page if you have space, as it piques reader's curiosity, and has the links for them to investigate the trivia. - Bovell Talk | 23:56, July 6, 2011 (UTC) One final thing to mention, after the progress over the last few days, and even just tonight, I assume it's a case of when, not if (any objections, continue to raise them, sooner rather than later) this goes live. When it does, we should consider putting together actual portal pages for each of the circles in the contents section to link to, rather than just the categories. I think it would just look and work better. I can throw together a prototype tomorrow if anyone's interested - 23:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC) :Agreed, the forum section was a bit too long. A did-you-know section would indeed be a nice replacement, or a featured article perhaps (moving it out of the slider?). Should I enable the portal namespace? Mark (talk) 14:22, July 7, 2011 (UTC) ::Did you know sounds like a good idea. I hadn't thought about a portal namespace, but yes, I suppose that would be helpful - 14:29, July 7, 2011 (UTC) :::I don't know about as did-you-know section, but I like the current look of BP's first mainpage test. SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 15:03, July 7, 2011 (UTC) ::::The portal namespace is now available. Mark (talk) 20:13, July 7, 2011 (UTC) :::::Great. I'll do something with it tomorrow - 20:27, July 7, 2011 (UTC) Well, I want to get this going then. I propose that the content on Usergroup:New mainpage/BP get transfered to the mainpage ASAP. Anyone want to give any further feedback before I make the change. Any further major changes (replacing forum feed/elsewhere online with did you know) can be made after it's gone active - 22:15, July 10, 2011 (UTC) :Go for it. It looks good as-is but like you said, adjustments can be made later. 23:05, July 10, 2011 (UTC) ::Yep, I'm all for it. SSDGFCTCT9(Talk) 02:27, July 11, 2011 (UTC) :Might as well, otherwise we'd be still changing and re-coding for ages, by which time we'd have forgotten about why we're doing this and scrap the whole idea. As Pres says, we can still adjust stuff later. - 09:17, July 11, 2011 (UTC) ::Looking good! Mark (talk) 11:49, July 11, 2011 (UTC) :::I'll take this as a go-ahead - 13:01, July 11, 2011 (UTC) Allright, 2 weeks have passed since the last edit. Should I merge P4F? Mark (talk) 17:38, July 25, 2011 (UTC) :It doesn't seem as if their community has come to a consensus. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 17:40, July 25, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, the equivilent page to this on Play4Free Wiki (http://battlefieldplay4free.wikia.com/wiki/Merge), which is arguably more important than this discussion, is almost unanimously against a merge. Mark, you might also want to check out Forum:Mainpage Redesign II - 17:43, July 25, 2011 (UTC) Archiving: Merge proposal rejected. Mainpage proposal largely accepted. Debate continues at Forum:Mainpage Redesign II and Forum:DYK - 16:11, August 11, 2011 (UTC) }}